Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010 Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants...

Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010

Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants – Volume 1

Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity

Revision 2 – November 2010Revision 1 – August 2007

Original – May 2007

U.S. Department of Energy

National Energy Technology Laboratory

2


Disclaimer

This presentation was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed therein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

3


Objective

• Determine cost and performance estimates of near-term commercial offerings for power plants both with and without current technology for CO2 capture– Consistent design requirements– Up-to-date performance and capital cost

estimates– Technologies built now and deployed in the near

term• Provides baseline costs and performance

– Compare existing technologies– Guide R&D for advancing technologies within the

FE Program

4


Study Matrix

PlantType

ST Cond.(psig/°F/°F)

GTGasifier/

Boiler

Acid Gas Removal/CO2 Separation / Sulfur

Recovery

CO2

Cap

IGCC

1800/1050/1050 (non-CO2

capture cases)

1800/1000/1000

(CO2 capture cases)

F Class

GEESelexol / - / Claus

Selexol / Selexol / Claus 90%

CoPE-Gas

MDEA / - / Claus


ShellSulfinol-M / - / Claus


PC

2400/1050/1050

SubcriticalWet FGD / - / Gypsum

Wet FGD / Econamine / Gypsum 90%

3500/1100/1100Supercritica

l

Wet FGD / - / Gypsum

Wet FGD / Econamine / Gypsum 90%

NGCC2400/1050/105

0F

ClassHRSG

- / Econamine / - 90%

GEE – GE EnergyCoP – Conoco Phillips

5


Design Basis: Coal Type

Illinois #6 Coal Ultimate Analysis (weight %)As Rec’d Dry

Moisture 11.12 0

Carbon 63.75 71.72

Hydrogen 4.50 5.06

Nitrogen 1.25 1.41

Chlorine 0.29 0.33

Sulfur 2.51 2.82

Ash 9.70 10.91

Oxygen (by difference) 6.88 7.75

100.0 100.0

HHV (Btu/lb) 11,666 13,126

6


Environmental Targets

PollutantIGCC1 PC2 NGCC3

SO20.0128

lb/MMBtu0.085

lb/MMBtu< 0.6 gr S /100

scf

NOx15 ppmv (dry)

@ 15% O2

0.07 lb/MMBtu

2.5 ppmv @ 15% O2

PM 0.0071 lb/MMBtu

0.013lb/MMBtu

Negligible

Hg > 90% capture1.14 lb/TBtu

Negligible

1 Based on EPRI’s CoalFleet User Design Basis Specification for Coal-Based IGCC Power Plants2 Based on BACT analysis, exceeding new NSPS requirements3 Based on EPA pipeline natural gas specification and 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKKK

7


Economic AssumptionsFirst Year of Capital Expenditure 2007

Effective Levelization Period (Years) 35 (PC & IGCC)

33 (NGCC)

Dollars 2007

Coal ($/MM Btu) 1.64

Natural Gas ($/MM Btu) 6.55

Capacity Factor

IGCC 80

PC/NGCC 85

5 Year Construction Period 3 Year Construction Period

High Risk Low Risk High Risk Low Risk

Capital Charge Factor 12.4% 11.6% 11.1% 10.5%

8


III

III

STUDY CATEGORY

Order of Magnitude Estimate (+/- >50% Accuracy)• Very little project-specific definition• Rough scaling of previous related but dissimilar analyses• “Back-of-the-envelope” analyses

Concept Screening (+/- 50% Accuracy)• Preliminary mass and energy balances • Modeling and simulation of major unit operations• Factored estimate based on previous similar analyses

Budget Estimate (+30% / -15% Accuracy)• Thorough mass and energy balances • Detailed process and economic modeling• Estimate based on vendor quotes, third-party EPC firms

Technical ApproachSystems Analyses Categorization

9


Technical Approach

1. Extensive Process Simulation (ASPEN) All major chemical processes and equipment are simulated Detailed mass and energy balances Performance calculations (auxiliary power, gross/net power output)

1. Extensive Process Simulation (ASPEN) All major chemical processes and equipment are simulated Detailed mass and energy balances Performance calculations (auxiliary power, gross/net power output)

2. Cost Estimation Inputs from process simulation

(Flow Rates/Gas Composition/Pressure/Temp.)

Sources for cost estimation WorleyParsons Vendor sources where available Follow DOE Analysis Guidelines

2. Cost Estimation Inputs from process simulation

(Flow Rates/Gas Composition/Pressure/Temp.)

Sources for cost estimation WorleyParsons Vendor sources where available Follow DOE Analysis Guidelines

10


Study Assumptions

• Capacity Factor assumed to equal Availability– IGCC capacity factor = 80% w/ no spare gasifier– PC and NGCC capacity factor = 85%

• GE gasifier operated in radiant/quench mode• Shell gasifier with CO2 capture used water injection for

cooling (instead of syngas cooler)• Nitrogen dilution was used to the maximum extent possible

in all IGCC cases and syngas humidification/steam injection were used only if necessary to achieve approximately 120 Btu/scf syngas LHV

• In CO2 capture cases, CO2 was compressed to 2200 psig, transported 50 miles, sequestered in a saline formation at a depth of 4,000 feet and monitored for 80 years

• CO2 transport, storage and monitoring (TS&M) costs were included in the levelized cost of electricity (COE)

11


IGCC Power Plant

Current State-of-the-Art

12


CoalOxygen

Gasifier*GE/Texaco*CoP/E-Gas

*Shell

Combined Cycle Power

Island

Cryogenic ASU

Syngas Cooler

Steam ClausPlant

Sulfur

Reheat/Humid.

Fuel Gas

Syngas Cooler/Quench

ParticulateRemoval

H2S Removal*Selexol*MDEA

*Sulfinol

Hg RemovalCarbon Bed

Current TechnologyIGCC Power Plant without CO2 Capture

Emission Controls:PM: Water scrubbing and/or candle filters to get 0.0071 lb/MMBtu NOx: N2 dilution to ~120 Btu/scf LHV to get 15 ppmv @15% O2

SOx: AGR design target of 0.0128 lb/MMBtu; Claus plant with tail gas recycle for ~99.8% overall S recovery

Hg: Activated carbon beds for ~95% removalAdvanced F-Class CC Turbine: 232 MWeSteam Conditions: 1800 psig/1050°F/1050°F


SOx: AGR design target of 0.0128 lb/MMBtu; Claus plant with tail gas recycle for ~99.8% overall S recovery


13


ConocoPhillipsE-Gas

ShellSCGP

Slag

Fuel Gas

Dry Coal

O2

HP Steam

GEE Texaco Gasifier

Gasifiers

14


IGCC Power Plant

With CO2 Capture

15


CoalOxygen

Gasifier*GE/Texaco*CoP/E-Gas

*Shell

Water Gas Shift

Combined Cycle Power

Island

Cryogenic ASU

Syngas Cooler

Steam

2-Stage Selexol

ClausPlant

Sulfur

CO2

Comp.

CO2

Steam

Reheat/Humid.

Fuel Gas

Syngas Cooler/Quench

ParticulateRemoval

Current TechnologyIGCC Power Plant with CO2 Capture


SOx: Selexol AGR removal of sulfur to < 6 ppmv H2S in syngasClaus plant with tail gas recycle for ~99.8% overall sulfur recovery



SOx: Selexol AGR removal of sulfur to < 6 ppmv H2S in syngasClaus plant with tail gas recycle for ~99.8% overall sulfur recovery


16


Water-Gas Shift Reactor SystemDesign: Sulfur Tolerant Catalyst Up to 98.5% CO Conversion 2 stages for GE and Shell, 3 stages for E-Gas H2O/CO = 1.8 – 2.25 (to achieve 90% CO2 capture)

H2O/CO Ratio

1.8 – 2.25

700-870oF 400oF

Steam as % of Main Steam Enthalpy1

22 – 40

Steam Steam

H2O + CO CO2 + H2

1 Recovered from Heat Integration

800psia550oF

17


IGCC Performance Results

GE Energy

CO2 Capture NO YES

Gross Power (MW) 748 734

Auxiliary Power (MW)

Base Plant Load 25 26

Air Separation Unit 98 115

Gas Cleanup/CO2 Capture 3 19

CO2 Compression - 31

Total Aux. Power (MW) 126 191

Net Power (MW) 622 543

Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) 8,756 10,458

Efficiency (HHV) 39.0 32.6

Energy Penalty1 - 6.4

1CO2 Capture Energy Penalty = Percent points decrease in net power plant efficiency due to CO2 Capture

h in ASU air comp. load w/o CT integration

Steam for Selexol

Includes H2S/CO2 Removal in Selexol

Solvent

18


IGCC Performance Results

GE Energy E-Gas Shell

CO2 Capture NO YES NO YES NO YES

Gross Power (MW) 748 734 738 704 737 673

Auxiliary Power (MW)

Base Plant Load 25 26 24 28 22 25

Air Separation Unit 98 115 86 111 85 103

Gas Cleanup/CO2 Capture 3 19 3 20 1 19

CO2 Compression - 31 - 31 - 30

Total Aux. Power (MW) 126 191 113 190 108 177

Net Power (MW) 622 543 625 514 629 497

Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) 8,756 10,458 8,585 10,998 8,099 10,924

Efficiency (HHV) 39.0 32.6 39.7 31.0 42.1 31.2

Energy Penalty1 - 6.4 - 8.7 - 10.9


19


IGCC Economic ResultsGE Energy E-Gas Shell


Total Plant Cost, $/kWe (2007$)1

Base Plant 1,426 1,708 1,423 1,804 1,719 2,164

Air Separation Unit 312 429 281 437 285 421

Gas Cleanup/CO2 Capture

249 503 209 500 213 521


Total 1,987 2,711 1,913 2,817 2,217 3,181

COE , $/MWh (2007$)

Capital 43.4 59.1 41.7 61.5 48.2 69.2

Fixed 11.3 14.8 11.1 15.5 12.1 16.7

Variable 7.3 9.3 7.2 9.8 7.8 9.9

Fuel 14.3 17.1 14.0 18.0 13.3 17.9

CO2 TS&M 0.0 5.3 0.0 5.6 0.0 5.7

Total2 76.3 105.7 74.0 110.4 81.3 119.5

CO2 Avoided, $/tonne (2007$)

Same technology - 43 - 54 - 61

Compared to SCPC - 66 - 73 - 86

1Total Plant Capital Cost (Includes contingencies and engineering fees but not owner’s costs)280% Capacity Factor

20


Comparison to PC and NGCC

Current State-of-the-Art

21


Current TechnologyPulverized Coal Power Plant*

CO22,200 Psig

Coal

Air PC Boiler(With SCR)

Steam

Bag Filter

WetLimestone

FGD

Scru

bber

Reg

ener

ator

Flue Gas

Ash

ID Fans

Steam

Steam toEconamine FG+

Power

PM Control: Baghouse to achieve 0.013 lb/MMBtu (99.8% removal)

SOx Control: FGD to achieve 0.085 lb/MMBtu (98% removal)NOx Control: LNB + OFA + SCR to maintain 0.07 lb/MMBtuMercury Control: Co-benefit capture ~90% removalSteam Conditions (Sub): 2400 psig/1050°F/1050°FSteam Conditions (SC): 3500 psig/1100°F/1100°F

PM Control: Baghouse to achieve 0.013 lb/MMBtu (99.8% removal)

SOx Control: FGD to achieve 0.085 lb/MMBtu (98% removal)NOx Control: LNB + OFA + SCR to maintain 0.07 lb/MMBtuMercury Control: Co-benefit capture ~90% removalSteam Conditions (Sub): 2400 psig/1050°F/1050°FSteam Conditions (SC): 3500 psig/1100°F/1100°F

*Orange Blocks Indicate Unit Operations Added for CO2 Capture Case

22


Current TechnologyNatural Gas Combined Cycle*

NOx Control: LNB + SCR to maintain 2.5 ppmvd @ 15% O2

Steam Conditions: 2400 psig/1050°F/1050°F

NOx Control: LNB + SCR to maintain 2.5 ppmvd @ 15% O2

Steam Conditions: 2400 psig/1050°F/1050°F

*Orange Blocks Indicate Unit Operations Added for CO2 Capture Case

HRSG

MEA

Combustion Turbine

CO2 Compressor

Stack

Direct ContactCooler

Blower

Natural Gas

Air Cooling WaterStack Gas

CO2

2200 psig

Reboiler Steam

Condensate Return

23


PC and NGCC Performance Results

Subcritical Supercritical NGCC


Gross Power (MW) 583 673 580 663 565 511

Base Plant Load 28 45 25 41 10 12

Gas Cleanup/CO2 Capture 5 29 5 27 0 10


Total Aux. Power (MW) 33 123 30 113 10 37

Net Power (MW) 550 550 550 550 555 474

Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) 9,277 13,046 8,687 12,002 6,798 7,968

Efficiency (HHV) 36.8 26.2 39.3 28.4 50.2 42.8

Energy Penalty1 - 10.6 - 10.9 - 7.4


24


PC and NGCC Economic ResultsSubcritical Supercritical NGCC



Base Plant 1,376 1,730 1,413 1,763 584 718

Gas Cleanup (SOx/NOx) 246 316 234 297 - -

CO2 Capture - 805 - 766 - 456


Total 1,622 2,942 1,647 2,913 584 1,226


Capital 31.2 60.2 31.7 59.6 10.1 22.3

Fixed 7.8 13.1 8.0 13.0 3.0 5.7

Variable 5.1 9.2 5.0 8.7 1.3 2.6

Fuel 15.2 21.3 14.2 19.6 44.5 52.2

CO2 TS&M 0.0 5.9 0.0 5.7 0.0 3.2

Total 2 59.4 109.7 58.9 106.6 58.9 85.9

CO2 Avoided, $/tonne (2007$)

Same technology - 68 - 69 - 84

Compared to SCPC - 75 - 69 - 36

1Total Plant Capital Cost (Includes contingencies and engineering fees but not owner’s costs)

285% Capacity Factor

25


Environmental Performance Comparison

IGCC, PC and NGCC

26


0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

GEE GEE w/CO2 Capture

CoP CoP w/ CO2 Capture

Shell Shell w/ CO2 Capture

SubcriticalPC

Subcritical PC w/ CO2

Capture

Supercritical PC

Supercritical PC w/ CO2

Capture

NGCC NGCC w/ CO2 Capture

Emis

sion

s, lb

/MM

Btu

SO2

NOx

Particulate Matter

Criteria Pollutant Emissions for All Cases

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4




SubcriticalPC

Subcritical PC w/ CO2 Capture

Supercritical PC


Capture


Hg E

mis

sion

s, lb

/TBt

u

27


CO2 Emissions for All Cases

1,723

206

1,710

217

1,595

218

1,888

266

1,768

244

804

94

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500




SubcriticalPC


Supercritical PC


Capture


CO2

Emis

sion

s, lb

/net

-MW

h

28


Raw Water Withdrawal and Consumption Comparison

IGCC, PC and NGCC

29


Raw Water Withdrawal and Consumption per MWnet (Absolute)

7.6

10.7

7.0

11.1

6.6

11.310.7

20.4

9.7

18.3

4.3

8.4

6.0

8.7

5.5

9.0

5.3

9.3

8.5

15.7

7.7

14.1

3.3

6.3

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0




SubcriticalPC


Supercritical PC


Capture


Wat

er, g

pm/M

Wne

t

Raw Water Withdrawal

Process Discharge

Raw Water Consumption

30


Economic Results for All Cases

31


CO2 Avoided Costs

43

54

61

68 69

84

66

73

86

75

69

36

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GEE CoP Shell Subcritical PC Supercritical PC NGCC

Firs

t Yea

r CO

2Av

oide

d Co

st, $

/ton

ne

Avoided Cost (Analogous Technology w/o Capture Reference)

Avoided Cost (SC PC w/o Capture Reference)

32


Plant Cost Comparison

2,447

3,334

2,351

3,466

2,716

3,904

1,996

3,610

2,024

3,570

718

1,497

2,789

3,801

2,680

3,952

3,097

4,451

2,264

4,115

2,296

4,070

771

1,614

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC TOC TASC

GEE GEE w/ CO2 Capture



Subcritical PC Subcritical PC w/ CO2 Capture

Supercritical PC Supercritical PC w/ CO2 Capture


TOC

or T

ASC,

$/k

W

TASC

Owner's Cost

Process Contingency

Project Contingency

Home Office Expense

Bare Erected Cost

33


Cost of Electricity Comparison

Coal cost $1.64/106Btu, Gas cost $6.55/106Btu

43.4

59.1

41.7

61.5

48.2

69.2

31.2

60.2

31.7

59.6

10.122.3

11.3

14.8

11.1

15.5

12.1

16.7

7.8

13.1

8.0

13.0

3.0

5.7

7.3

9.3

7.2

9.8

7.8

9.9

5.1

9.2

5.0

8.7

1.3

2.6

14.3

17.1

14.0

18.0

13.3

17.9

15.2

21.3

14.2

19.6

44.5

52.2

5.35.6

5.7

5.95.7

3.276.3

105.7

74.0

110.4

81.3

119.5

59.4

109.7

58.9

106.6

58.9

85.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160



Shell Shell w/ CO2

Capture

Subcritical PC

Subcritical PC w/ CO2

Capture

Supercritical PC


Capture

NGCC NGCC w/ CO2

Capture

FY C

OE,

mill

s/kW

h

CO2 TS&M Costs

Fuel Costs

Variable Costs

Fixed Costs

Capital Costs

34


Highlights

35


NETL Viewpoint

• Most up-to-date performance and costs available in public literature to date

• Establishes baseline performance and cost estimates for current state of technology

• Improved efficiencies and reduced costs are required to improve competitiveness of advanced coal-based systems – In today’s market and regulatory environment – Also in a carbon constrained scenario

• Fossil Energy RD&D aimed at improving performance and cost of clean coal power systems including development of new approaches to capture and sequester greenhouse gases

36


Result Highlights: Efficiency & Capital Cost

• Coal-based plants using today’s technology are efficient and clean– IGCC & PC: 39%, HHV (without capture on bituminous coal) – Meet or exceed current environmental requirements – Today’s capture technology can remove 90% of CO2, but at

significant increase in COE

• Total Overnight Cost: IGCC ~25% higher than PC– NGCC: $718/kW– PC: $2010/kW (average)– IGCC: $2505/kW (average)

• Total Overnight Cost with Capture: PC > IGCC– NGCC: $1497/kW– IGCC: $3568/kW (average)– PC: $3590/kW (average)

37


Results HighlightsCOE ($2007)

• COE: NGCC & PC lowest cost generators– NGCC: 59 $/MWh – PC: 59 $/MWh (average) – IGCC: 77 $/MWh (average)

• With CCS: PC lowest coal-based option – NGCC: 86 $/MWh – PC: 108 $/MWh (average)– IGCC: 112 $/MWh (average)

• Breakeven FY COE* when natural gas price is:– No Capture IGCC: $9.24/MMBtu PC: $6.59/MMBtu

– With Capture IGCC: $9.80/MMBtu PC: $9.34/MMBtu

* At baseline coal cost of $1.64/MMBtu

38


Summary Table for All Cases

39


Summary TablePERFORMANCE Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 9 Case 10 Case 11 Case 12 Case 13 Case 14CO2 Capture 0% 90% 0% 90% 0% 90% 0% 90% 0% 90% 0% 90%Gross Power Output (kWe) 747,800 734,000 738,200 703,700 737,000 673,400 582,600 672,700 580,400 662,800 564,700 511,000Auxiliary Power Requirement (kWe) 125,750 190,750 113,140 190,090 108,020 176,540 32,580 122,740 30,410 112,830 9,620 37,430Net Power Output (kWe) 622,050 543,250 625,060 513,610 628,980 496,860 550,020 549,960 549,990 549,970 555,080 473,570Coal Flowrate (lb/hr) 466,901 487,011 459,958 484,212 436,646 465,264 437,378 614,994 409,528 565,820 N/A N/ANatural Gas Flowrate (lb/hr) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 167,333 167,333HHV Thermal Input (kWth) 1,596,320 1,665,074 1,572,582 1,655,503 1,492,878 1,590,722 1,495,379 2,102,643 1,400,162 1,934,519 1,105,812 1,105,812Net Plant HHV Efficiency (%) 39.0% 32.6% 39.7% 31.0% 42.1% 31.2% 36.8% 26.2% 39.3% 28.4% 50.2% 42.8%Net Plant HHV Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) 8,756 10,458 8,585 10,998 8,099 10,924 9,277 13,046 8,687 12,002 6,798 7,968

Raw Water Withdrawal (gpm/MWnet) 7.6 10.7 7.0 11.1 6.6 11.3 10.7 20.4 9.7 18.3 4.3 8.4

Process Water Discharge (gpm/MWnet) 1.6 2.0 1.4 2.1 1.2 2.0 2.2 4.7 2.0 4.3 1.0 2.1Raw Water Consumption (gpm/MWnet) 6.0 8.7 5.5 9.0 5.3 9.3 8.5 15.7 7.7 14.1 3.3 6.3

CO2 Emissions (lb/MMBtu) 197 20 199 20 197 20 204 20 204 20 118 12

CO2 Emissions (lb/MWhgross) 1,434 152 1,448 158 1,361 161 1,783 217 1,675 203 790 87

CO2 Emissions (lb/MWhnet) 1,723 206 1,710 217 1,595 218 1,888 266 1,768 244 804 94

SO2 Emissions (lb/MMBtu) 0.0012 0.0022 0.0117 0.0022 0.0042 0.0021 0.0858 0.0017 0.0858 0.0016 Negligible Negligible

SO2 Emissions (lb/MWhgross) 0.0090 0.0166 0.0852 0.0173 0.0290 0.0171 0.7515 0.0176 0.7063 0.0162 Negligible NegligibleNOx Emissions (lb/MMBtu) 0.059 0.049 0.060 0.049 0.059 0.049 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.009 0.008NOx Emissions (lb/MWhgross) 0.430 0.376 0.434 0.396 0.409 0.396 0.613 0.747 0.576 0.697 0.060 0.061PM Emissions (lb/MMBtu) 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 0.0130 Negligible NegligiblePM Emissions (lb/MWhgross) 0.052 0.055 0.052 0.057 0.049 0.057 0.114 0.139 0.107 0.129 Negligible NegligibleHg Emissions (lb/TBtu) 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 0.571 1.143 1.143 1.143 1.143 Negligible NegligibleHg Emissions (lb/MWhgross) 4.16E-06 4.42E-06 4.15E-06 4.59E-06 3.95E-06 4.61E-06 1.00E-05 1.22E-05 9.41E-06 1.14E-05 Negligible Negligible

COSTTotal Plant Cost (2007$/kW) 1,987 2,711 1,913 2,817 2,217 3,181 1,622 2,942 1,647 2,913 584 1,226Total Overnight Cost (2007$/kW) 2,447 3,334 2,351 3,466 2,716 3,904 1,996 3,610 2,024 3,570 718 1,497 Bare Erected Cost 1,528 2,032 1,470 2,113 1,695 2,385 1,317 2,255 1,345 2,239 482 926 Home Office Expenses 144 191 138 199 156 221 124 213 127 211 40 78 Project Contingency 265 369 256 385 302 444 182 369 176 362 62 162 Process Contingency 50 119 50 120 63 131 0 105 0 100 0 60 Owner's Costs 460 623 438 649 500 723 374 667 377 657 133 271Total Overnight Cost (2007$ x 1,000) 1,521,880 1,811,411 1,469,577 1,780,290 1,708,524 1,939,878 1,098,124 1,985,432 1,113,445 1,963,644 398,290 709,039Total As Spent Capital (2007$/kW) 2,789 3,801 2,680 3,952 3,097 4,451 2,264 4,115 2,296 4,070 771 1,614

COE (mills/kWh, 2007$)1,2 76.3 105.6 74.0 110.3 81.3 119.4 59.4 109.6 58.9 106.5 58.9 85.9 CO2 TS&M Costs 0.0 5.2 0.0 5.5 0.0 5.6 0.0 5.8 0.0 5.6 0.0 3.2 Fuel Costs 14.3 17.1 14.0 18.0 13.3 17.9 15.2 21.3 14.2 19.6 44.5 52.2 Variable Costs 7.3 9.3 7.2 9.8 7.8 9.9 5.1 9.2 5.0 8.7 1.3 2.6 Fixed Costs 11.3 14.8 11.1 15.5 12.1 16.7 7.8 13.1 8.0 13.0 3.0 5.7 Capital Costs 43.4 59.1 41.7 61.5 48.2 69.2 31.2 60.2 31.7 59.6 10.1 22.3LCOE (mills/kWh, 2007$)1,2 96.7 133.9 93.8 139.9 103.1 151.4 75.3 139.0 74.7 135.2 74.7 108.91 CF is 80% for IGCC cases and 85% for PC and NGCC cases.

GEE R+Q CoP E-Gas FSQ Shell PC Subcritical PC Supercritical Advanced F Class

Date post:	04-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	francine-knight
View:	217 times
Download:	4 times

Bituminous Baseline Study – November 2010 Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants...

Documents